PaulL, call me thick and intellectually vacuous too but I think Rache is essentially correct in listing those items.

It’s true that the UN never published a specific list of banned items but everything Iraq imported was subject to dual-use provisions.
If anything could possibly be used for WMD or military purposes it was banned.
Some sites kept progressively updated lists of individual items that were subject to these provisions and that's where Raches seems to have got some of that information.

Iraq could buy vaccines and antibiotics but if you can’t have parts to repair refrigerated trucks to transport them or cold conditions to store them, they aren’t much use.
One of the medications banned were for anti-anthrax use so could be potentially used to protect Iraqi troops in case they used certain biological weapons. Bowever, hypodermics to inject the existing stocks were thus banned.
Likewise, insulin was OK but without the syringes to inject it. It’s not much use.

Parts to repair damaged water plants were OK but not the parts to repair the damaged power plants to run them and so on.
The chlorine mentioned was a primary ingredient for water purification so water borne diseases became rampant.

Interesting that UNICEF and the UN independently published mortality figures of up to 500,000 years ago and how that number seems to have gone down since.

Some of those unusable goods were warehoused until they could be used so Saddam was accused of stockpiling them and withholding them from his people.

Here are just some references to dual-use items and sanctions generally.
http://harpers.org/archive/2002/11/0079384
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0711d.asp
http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/gordon
http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2002/sc7623.html
http://www.acp-cpa.ca/Iraqsanctions.htm
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/File/pdf/Spring2001vfpnews.pdf
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=115
http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/index.html?page=/iraqinfo/sanctions/sanctions.html
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/themes.html

Hi there Perilous

once again.. you miss the point. (why I'm shocked.. u've never done 'that' b4)

In another thread you claim I believe there were no religious overtones in the Crusades...I've never said that. I've always maintained that the Crusades DID have a religious element, which was sidelined eventually or.. blurred by lust for territory and power. I've also said simply compare the actions of the Crusades with the teaching of Christ and draw your conclusions about the "Biblical" nature of them or not.

Enuf on that.

The point I'm making with Ruby is that she made a claim which is:
a) False
b) Damaging.

I freely concede that many comments I make about "Islam" are damaging, but I contest that they are 'false' which is rather important.
But that's a different and long and separate debate.

You are making the same error Ruby did, you are equating the process of captivity, grieving and then marriage with:

"A COMMAND TO RAPE"

and no matter how repulsive you personally find the idea of captivity, grieving and marriage as described in the Old Testament...it is at WORST a 'concession' "you may" ..it is not a 'command'...there is a world of difference.

Look at the facts and describe them as colorfully as you like.. call it 'horrific, terrible, uncivilized' add as many adjectives as you wish...but do so on the basis of the FACTS...not on popular anti Biblical Anti Christian mouthing off.

I take that approach when I criticize Islam and I request the same approach when criticizing my own faith.

"That"...is the point.

Wobbles

From Harpers>> “Chlorine, for example—vital for water purification, and feared as a possible source of the chlorine gas used in chemical weapons—is aggressively monitored, AND DELIVERIES HAVE BEEN REGULAR. Every single canister is tracked from the time of contracting through arrival, installation, and disposal of the empty canister. “

Just for starters you should recall that Hussein used the sanctions system and preferential oil contracts to buy favours across the world. The French, Chinese and particularly the Russians received very valuable contracts for Iraqi oil. Many individuals given preferences on oil contracts made tens of millions of dollars without ever shipping a barrel.

From The Future of Freedom Foundation >> “Based on a survey of nearly 24,000 households, it concluded that for central and south Iraq the under-age–5 mortality rate averaged 56 out of 1,000 in the period from 1984 to 1989 and 131 out of 1,000 from 1994 to 1999 — an increase of more than 130 percent. Comparing mortality during the sanctions WITH AN EXTRAPOLATED TREND LINE, IT ESTIMATED 500,000 excess deaths of children under the age of five from 1991 to 1998. IT WAS CAREFUL NOT TO ATTRIBUTE ALL OF THEM TO SANCTIONS.”

If you have any articles that actually reference united nations documents banning soap, bandages, sanitary towels, toothpaste and toothbrushes, baby food, blankets etc please let me know as I don’t have time to read all of your unreferenced material.

I would also note that it always the case that early articles by reporters are almost always less reliable than those that come later. Reporters are always under deadline pressure and as such don’t always have all the information.

The Lancet study of 2000 found that childrens mortality under the UN’s care actually improved, whilst those under Saddam’s care worsened significantly. The obvious difference is that the UN didn’t have to buy the support of the Baathists and the other favoured members of the society, and was therefore was more likely to distribute the aid equitably. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673600022893

Goodthief, I'm not a marketing person, but I can see a few audiences for The Humane Koran (working title only).
Firstly, as many have said here, many Muslims appear not have read their Koran. Good, I say. These Muslims won't miss the bits they haven't already come across, and will have a better read.
Secondly, there are Muslims who want their religion not to be able to be used by militants who wish to use the violence found throughout the Koran for their own ends.
Thirdly, there are non-Muslims who want to find out if what they've heard about the Koran is true. These come from two ends of the spectrum - those who have been told that Islam means peace, and those who have heard bin laden and crew claim Koranic support for their actions. I'll show both that the Koran has both (although almost none of the first, and great floods of the latter).
Finally, the biggest audience for The Humane Koran are those in non-Muslim countries who, once seeing for themselves the reams of violence in the Koran, will demand that Muslims choose to remove the violence from their religion.
And it may just be that Muslims might react against those claiming Koranic support for violence against other Muslims, and demand a stop.
I don't expect it to be popular at first, but I hope it catches on. After the Koran, it's all the Hadith, and that's a much bigger project.

Once and for all, Boaz.

>>I take that approach when I criticize Islam and I request the same approach when criticizing my own faith.<<

It is not your faith that is the focus of criticism, Boaz, but the manner in which you use it.

It should make absolutely no difference to anyone what religion an individual follows. Everyone should have the right to indulge their need for a spiritual support structure without interference, so long as it does not involve breaking the law.

Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population to which it seems to have a fundamental and visceral objection to this approach, and that is the followers of a different religious subset.

Even this isn't a problem, until and unless the law is broken.

At that point religion is no excuse, and they become common criminals.

Ruby Soho

For somebody so excited by defending Muhammadism you are remarkably ignorant about it. First of all, they think The Koran is the actual word of Allah spoken 1400 years ago. Unlike Xianity, they do not see issues of translation, metaphors, etc. The Koran has not been subjected to the same extraordinary high levels of critical scholarship that The Bible has over the past two centuries. Why? Because scholars are scared to death of the fate The Koran demands for scholarship. Beheading!

Ruby, you are clearly a thoughtful and curious young woman, so let us hope you can free yourself of the cerebral porridge that afflicts you at present. You need to apply your critical skills to your OWN religion; Leftism

Marxism is far more evil than Xianity, Judaism, and Islam combined.

Marxism (and all its Leftist bastard offshoots) is the 4th Abrahamnic religion. Indeed The Holocaust began with The Communist Manifesto. Marx’s writing are full of democidal demands, not to mention a maniacal hatred of Jews. And Hitler admired Marx very much, though loathed - quite rightly - International Communists.

I have quite a theory about Marx’s Judeo-Xian hangups, which I see projected throughout his whole ideological project. His utopian eschatology, messianic zeal, intolerance of heresy, romanticisng of the proletariat, etc. etc. all add up to a young Herr Marx very much screwed up by his family ‘trying too hard’ to be Xian and not Jewish. These same hangups are bequeathed to his modern day cultists; Leftists

But that will have to wait for another day.